Trudeau government stands firm in clash with faith-based groups over summer jobs

Yeah, I did just seriously say that. I think you may be missing that this is two separate issues.

No one here is arguing in favour of funding anti-abortion or anti-LGBT propaganda. But when that gets used as a foil to compare those who who don't support marriage equality or access to abortion to slavery and genocide (which just happened) that's a problem.

And it is also ridiculous. Seriously? The MCC which fostered Ten Thousand Villages and countless international projects are no different than those who keep slaves or commit genocide?

Same goes for characterizing people who hold those values as not being capable of reason, or not acting in good faith, or misusing funds, or secretly using unfair hiring practices. If you really think they are incapable of changing their minds, maybe you should read this:

https://www.pembinavalleyonline.com/local/mcc-to-make-exceptions-to-its-...

Or again, look at public opinion polls which have shown support for choice changing. And the one I just posted which shows what people think about this move on the part of the government.

And yes, the fact that Trudeau's policy lets people think it is okay to make these insulting comparisons against some who are doing nothing against LGBT people or to interfere with choice is a real problem. It is no different than the hatred and ignorance that drove discrimination against Doukhobours, Jehovah's Witnesses, Sikhs, Jews, Muslims, Indigenous people, Mennonites and Catholics at various times during our history. And it is not going to help solve this problem. It will make it worse.

Do I need to remind you that we have seen mosques vandalized and people murdered, and that our flawed attitudes about their beliefs contributes strongly to that?

After all, why should these people be open to any dialogue at all with people who just assume they are closed-minded, untrustworthy, and no better than mass murderers? And who think they do not deserve public funding from tax resources which they paid in to just as much as the rest of us?

Trudeau could have handled this a lot differently, instead of admitting they made a mistake, and yet insisting that those caught up in that mistake were playing politics. In fact many went out of their way to repond in good faith.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 And it is also ridiculous. Seriously? The MCC which fostered Ten Thousand Villages and countless international projects are no different than those who keep slaves or commit genocide? 

Strawman argument. No one said these things are equivalent. It is common to use exageration to make a point clear. You claimed that it is discriminatory to without funds from the Church based on their position on LGBTQ2 rights and women's reproductive rights. I said:

If their beliefs include supporting slavery I would discriminate against them for that as well so discrimination isn't automatically negative. I object to organizations whose core mandate includes opposing rights for women and LGBTQ recieving government money. In my own opinion that is a reasonable position to take. Post 336

I did not suggest that opposing LGBTQ2 rights and reproductive rights is the equivalent of supporting slavery. My point was that discrimination is not necessarily negative if it is based on principle rather than some inherent quality like skin colour. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 ​No one here is arguing in favour of funding anti-abortion or anti-LGBT propaganda. But when that gets used as a foil to compare those who who don't support marriage equality or access to abortion to slavery and genocide (which just happened) that's a problem. 

Didn't happen.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Same goes for characterizing people who hold those values as not being capable of reason, or not acting in good faith, or misusing funds, or secretly using unfair hiring practices.  

I am sure they are capable of reason and that they are acting in good faith and in accordance with what they believe to be supreme law which comes from God not Man. I do think they are hiring students they have access to through the church whom they believe adhere to the church's thinking. I think they would have a huge problem with it if a male counselor mentioned their boyfriend works on ships. That's an opinion not a mischaracterization. I also don't believe they would hire someone recognizably trans gender. You're free to think otherwise. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

If you really think they are incapable of changing their minds, maybe you should read this:

https://www.pembinavalleyonline.com/local/mcc-to-make-exceptions-to-its-...

I don't think that. If and when they change their minds they can drop those policies from their core mandate and check the box. Problem solved. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

  Or again, look at public opinion polls which have shown support for choice changing. And the one I just posted which shows what people think about this move on the part of the government.

I did, and I responded. My opinion doesn't depend on polls. Charter rights exist to protect against the tyranny of the majority. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And yes, the fact that Trudeau's policy lets people think it is okay to make these insulting comparisons against some who are doing nothing against LGBT people or to interfere with choice is a real problem.  

Preaching against homosexuality and against abortion for women is intended to sway people's minds and have an impact on law. Opposing these things is part of their core mandate. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

  It is no different than the hatred and ignorance that drove discrimination against Doukhobours, Jehovah's Witnesses, Sikhs, Jews, Muslims, Indigenous people, Mennonites and Catholics at various times during our history. And it is not going to help solve this problem. It will make it worse. 

They aren't being asked to wear yellow stars or even being forbidden from preaching their doctrine. They just aren't being given money to hire students. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

After all, why should these people be open to any dialogue at all with people who just assume they are closed-minded, untrustworthy, and no better than mass murderers? And who think they do not deserve public funding from tax resources which they paid in to just as much as the rest of us?  

You are projecting. Paying taxes is not a measure of entitlement and not everyone is entitled to public funding. Criteria has to be met. 

We are not going to change the minds of every single person nor do we need to. I do hope this causes them to reconsider the fairness of their beliefs and perhaps even causes some to leave the church (unlikely) but if not that is on them. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Trudeau could have handled this a lot differently, instead of admitting they made a mistake, and yet insisting that those caught up in that mistake were playing politics. In fact many went out of their way to respond in good faith.  

There was no mistake. I hope next year's wording makes that clearer rather than backtracking. 

You consider your Mennonite link a positive example of open-mindedness because on the Canadian side they are considering some exceptions to allow homosexual employees to have sex with their partners in Canada but they haven't worked out any details and any case brought forth would have to be submitted to the US for approval. 

So, if they happen to have a homosexual employee, that employee is allowed to apply for permission to have sex but that application must also go through the US to be approved.

At one time LGBTQ2 people had to hide their orientation or identity and women who had abortion carried socially imposed shame and strove to keep it a secret. That situation is in the process of being reversed. 

The arguments have all been presented for years. There is lots of information available for anyone who is open-minded and wants to educate themselves. Over time opposing LGBTQ2 and women's rights is becoming more and more socially unacceptable. Pressure to self-educate will grow as they realize their opinions label them as ignorant and they are shunned if they express them. 

We are way beyond the point of debating whether or not an employer should be in the position of granting homosexuals the right to have sex in their private lives. The answer is a clear "are you insane?". 

That is partly why churches are in decline in Canada. They hold untenable views. They preach prejudice. 

From your link:

"We have a variety of people who apply for positions. Just as we have LGBTQ in our faith communities, we also have LGBTQ who would apply for these positions. And remember that we're not rejecting people who are of LGBTQ orientation, it's the lifestyle expectation that applies."

Hate the sin not the sinner I think that is called. And I think the point you have tried to make...

"We have to remember that MCC, for 100 years, has been doing good work in relief and development around the world in the most needy and the most desperate of places. And that work has gone on for 100 years and we expect it will continue for the next 100 years, hopefully. "

That is not an argument for tolerating homophobic views. The same people can continue to do all their good works. That is not what they are being judged and rejected for. They could do the same work under a different banner but they want the Mennonite church to recieve credit so they can recruit more little Mennonites to indoctrinate. 

I feel all the more strongly that such organizations should not receive public funds. La Meute pays taxes too. 

Quote:

And Pondering, no need to jump to hyperbolae about the Holocaust; some of those faiths did have kids taken away from them, were targetted for sterilization, were threatened with not being able to wear religious clothing in public. Others have seen their churches vandalized, their members attacked and murdered. In large part because of our assumptions about their alleged dogmatic attitudes.

Somehow I genuinely doubt that any of this is going to lead to a pogrom against Catholics who wouldn't check the box.

And I also doubt that it's a slippery slope -- today we think they're acting in bad faith, and tomorrow we sharpen up the pitchforks, emboldened by those who argue that the abstainers are having a little hissy fit.

This is frankly starting to resemble a right-wing "HOW MANY MORE MUST DIE?!?" argument.

Nobody in Bruno is going to be hauled from their home.  They just don't get pie this year, I guess.  Because the cherry folk need to pretend that they're not allowed to believe as they believe.  They are LITERALLY allowed to believe that women who have an abortion will be tormented in a lake of fire, and still receive government summer job funding, but for some reason, that's not enough.

Quote:

That's because someone did die, Magoo. And someone had their mosque torched in Edmonton a few nights ago.

Ah.  Because of this attestation, I assume?  My and Pondering's murderous refusal to believe that some people aren't being honest about this? 

Smith, if you're literally suggesting we should all just back off, and hand out the money to whoever wants it, because OTHERWISE BABIES WILL DIE!  THEY WILL DIE, MAGOO!!!!...

... then you've lost your way.  Somehow we've managed to go from no 17-year old to run the Cherry Festival to a Mosque being burned.  Can we please be done soon?  This is well beyond absurd.

ed'd to add:  is it a coincidence that we're seeing a very similar "argument" in the Peterson thread?

Apparently, the non-binary are being assaulted and harrassed and murdered at an alarming rate, while an uncaring public looks the other way and refuses to say "xir".

Are there any Canadian stats to back up the idea that non-binary people and Catholics are really in mortal physical danger?  Like, anything at all?  Or is this just Chicken Little nonsense?  Can we similarly discuss why so many babies are murdered in their cribs by home invaders because we hate babies so much we won't let their parents have a gun to protect them?  That's the kind of argument this is becoming.  And I know you don't hate babies that much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia_in_Canada

As for anti-Catholicism, do I really need to give you a primer on that 400-year-old history?

Not solely. Is that supposed to be a defense?

Funny that intersectional hatred is no easier for some to understand than intersectional solidarity.

Quote:

Not solely. Is that supposed to be a defense?

Of course not.  But it does prompt the uncomfortable question of why people who believe that (for example) their God turned a woman into salt would have any reason to question the claims of any other religion.  Are those claims sillier??  And that all just speaks back to what constitutes a logical argument.

Just out of curiousity, though:  do you at least believe it's PRIMARILY atheists harrassing (or killing) Muslims in Canada/North America for their beliefs?

Also, are we going off track a little here?  I don't recall seeing in this thread any mention of Muslim groups being denied funding, nor of Muslim groups insisting that even after clarification "they can't understand".  When did this become about a burned Mosque??

Yeah. That's good laine.Don't forget to stop shopping at the local Eastern Market too. Solidarity.

And cco, I left one of those groups at 17, so this is no eyeopener to me, and I am one of your "survivors". What I think is stupid is the notion that any of this is going to be solved by picking fights with those who have caused no offense, and laying down battle lines. And we talk like they are the dogmatic, inflexible ones. Really?

Your survivor. They didn't happen to say anything about all the people caught in the crossfire in these situations, eh? I can tell you about that.

Quote:

And we talk like they are the dogmatic, inflexible ones. Really?

The government responded to complaints and made an effort to clarify their terms, and the complainers responded with an effort to continue to be unable to understand (or, frankly, to keep deliberately misunderstanding, unless the words "belief" or "support" are somewhere on that form and neither I nor my browser's search function can find them).

What do you feel the dissenters have offered, in terms of a show of good faith?  Where have they offered a compromise, other than "give us the money or there'll be no pie and it will be all your fault"?

Smith wrote: "And who think they do not deserve public funding from tax resources which they paid in to just as much as the rest of us?"

no churches do not pay in to just as much as the rest of us.

you should hear f.

Quote:

I'm not surprised that some wouldn't sign as is, because words mean what they do.

On a government form, words mean what the government says they mean, in the context of that form.

You'd have a much stronger argument if the government had refused to clarify.  But they clarified, and groups still held strong to what they wanted the words to mean.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

laine lowe wrote:

It may be a ridiculously low impact, but I still hope my decisions count.

Yes, as it concerns fair trade organizations and other local cooperatives in developing countries, I hope your decision has a very small impact, if you so choose.

 

 

You can check your condescending attitude at the door, Smith. Do you not think I didn't take those issues into consideration when I first supported MCC for more than two decades? Thanks to how adamantly Heph used to outline the awful attitude the Salvation Army had for LGBT people and their issues, I made sure not support them either. And my actions may not amount to nothing in the scheme of things but I do let others know about my actions and why I make them.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 And no, you didn't say it Pondering. You aren't the only person in this thread. But really, some of the ways you demonize them: 

"Their beliefs are rooted in faith not science so there is no argument they will accept."

There is no argument that will convince the faithful that God is imaginary therefore he didn't take any positions on homosexuality or abortion. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And Pondering, no need to jump to hyperbolae about the Holocaust; some of those faiths did have kids taken away from them, were targetted for sterilization, were threatened with not being able to wear religious clothing in public. Others have seen their churches vandalized, their members attacked and murdered. In large part because of our assumptions about their alleged dogmatic attitudes.  

Yes, homosexuals were also rounded up for extermination. That's what intolerance breeds. I will tolerate religion but I won't accept it as a shield for intolerance. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 You mention La Meute. I expect some of their members would agree completely with the smears being made in this thread about religious people not listening to reason, having a hidden agenda, not being trustworthy, and trampling on the rights of others. Why do you think they want to keep them out of the country? 

Their agenda isn't hidden it's right out there.  Faith is not subject to reason. I trust them to promote that which is part of their core mandate. They want to trample on the rights of others. They want laws against abortion and they don't want homosexuals to have the right to marry or raise children or have sex. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 In case you are wondering why I say this is a separate issue from respect for LGBT people and choice (which again, many of those affected do not campaign against). That is why. And that Trudeau has opened the door to this by saying that these churches are acting in bad faith is the biggest reason why I consider his actions hypocritical and destructive. 

These churches insist that part of their core mandate is to oppose women's reproductive rights and LGBTQ2 rights. They keep insisting that this is about beliefs but it is not. It is about the organization's core mandate. I make no distinction between campaigning and preaching. 

Pondering wrote:

from Catholics or lapsed Catholics.

That made me laugh out loud. Of course the Catholics are to blame for that too.

... or they gotta be lapsed ones!

Ah. So it's all the Christians. No one else.

And three quarters support the ban. That isn't just La Meute.

(edit)

Also, what actually is funny is making it sound like it is yet another function of religion that we can blame on them. In fact there are almost as many bigots in the rest of Canada (high 60s), but far fewer Catholics, and a lot more atheism. And the "closed-minded, brainwashed" smear is something that far more often comes from mainline Protestants (who really consider themselves rationalists) and atheists.

So no, it's not Catholics; it's just bigots. When I asked what the motivation was, that's what I meant. Wasn't quite expecting an answer, well, pointing out an identifiable group, let's say.

Quote:

So a library and a store are unable to attest that their core mandate respects the values and rights reflected by the Canadian Charter of  Rights and Freedoms.   I would have thought their core mandate would have been loaning out books and selling products and nothing else. 

I would very much like to know what it is in their core mandates that clashes with the requirement.

The Library had no difficulty, and they received funding.

Quote:

"We agreed that as a library we are not signing and attesting this for personal reasons or ideas or beliefs, it is as a library itself," says Graham.

She notes the library stands for anything that is not racial, it stands for the freedom to read, intellectual freedom and its hiring is based on no discriminations.

"So in that sense, this question to attest to that really did not create a problem for us," she admits.

Ten Thousand Villages doesn't seem to have anything explicit in their mandate to exempt them, however:

Quote:

"We know we have supporters that both would have no problem with us checking off that box and we also have supporters that believe that we should not be applying by checking that box off," explains Hiebert.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

This is what they really said about having to mark that box.:

Hiebert says they applied for funding again this year. With its application, MCC was asked to check off a new box on the form, indicating it supports reproductive rights such as abortion. Hiebert says his organization was not comfortable checking off the attestation box, implemented by the federal government and left it blank.

There was no box indicating that. 

Both the job* and my organization's core mandate* respect individual human rights in Canada, including the values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as other rights. These include reproductive rights and the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability or sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression; 

What aspect of the store's core mandade does not respect those rights?

Andrew Coyne makes a good point in this editorial from back in March (though I don't agree with all his points):

If you want to know how the Liberals managed to turn a 20-point lead in the polls into a five-point deficit in little more than a year, a good place to start is their apparently sincere belief that they could blackmail the country’s churches into dropping their opposition to abortion.

...

Amazingly, the primary effect of the government’s ham-handed attempt to banish abortion opponents to the margin of Canadian society has been to give them the most sympathetic hearing they have have had in years, even from a media that leans overwhelmingly in favour of abortion rights.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-liberals-effort-to-blackma...

Last year, however, the governing body in Saskatchewan announced that congregations could decide on their own whether or not they would be welcoming and the church would not take action against it. This was decided, in part, to keep some congregations from leaving the denomination.

Well good. Public pressure forced them to rethink their rules. I hope that continues. I hope not receiving funding encourages more congregations to reject Church rules and threaten to leave. 

That is not the case with organizations whose core mandate disrespects the rights of the LBBTQ2 community and women's reproductive rights. 

As to the National Post, mainstream media has its own agenda and chases click-bait. Pundits have to write about something.

The surprise is that such an inflamatory accusation took this long to go international. That isn't a rivival. Trudeau was asked about it because he was available for Canada day celebrations. That may even be why it went international. They still have to have something new to say to keep the story alive.

I guess we shall see which one of us is right soon enough.

Quote:

I don't agree one bit with these churches' stand on abortion or LGBT issues; but I am not happy at all that it has meant lost services for things that had nothing to do with either issue.

But Smith, it's only meant lost funding for services when either:

a) organizations knew that the funding was going to be used to try to roll back LGBTQ rights or reproductive rights

b) organizations who, in fact, do not actively engage in activities meant to roll back LGBTQ rights or reproductive rights persistently chose to claim that the form requires them to "support" abortion or homosexuality (which it doesn't) or that this is an intrusion on the personal beliefs of members (it's not)

You seem eager to blame Trudeau, even as Trudeau has the chequebook out and ready for (say) a cherry festival whose mandate would reasonably seem to be centred around cherries and the celebration of them, but who would rather insist over and over again that they're being required to "support" abortion.

You seem to think the government has made a foolhardy and short-sighted choice here, even as you rationalize dissenters choosing this as their hill to die on, summer job funding-wise.

Quote:

Well at this point, not is it only they who see it otherwise, but as Coyne mentioned, a number of those in the press who otherwise support choice also recognize that many had a valid reason not to sign as well.

Right.  Here's Coyne, six years ago, showing his support for choice:

Andrew Coyne: The idea we can't debate abortion is unworthy of a democratic country

Google "Andrew Coyne abortion" and read all about his stirring and heroic attempts to protect women's right to choose.

Quote:

And as much as you want to continue to insist it isn't so, the end result (as Coyne also points out) is to bring those arguments that they would have had to stuff into mailboxes, and plastered them in newspapers. When is the last time you remember abortion issue being all over the news for no reason to do with the actual issue at all?

Credit where credit is due.  The folks who chose to make a big stink instead of making cherry pies managed to make this a newsworthy thing.  Well played.  And all they had to do was say over and over and over again that they're being asked to support babies being ripped from wombs, or else the poor people of Bruno can't have cherries.  And as you note, it worked.

Quote:

They would have had nothing to play if the government had accepted some of those applications unchecked with explanations.

Ya, but instead those evil bastards just went ahead and clarified the language they were told was unclear.

He didn't refer to himself as one. He said that media which strongly support abortion rights have recognized that organizations caught up in this have a valid grievance.

Paula Simon of the Edmonton Journal is a good example. I posted this months ago: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/paula-simons-summer-job-ideo...

And again, whether you want to recognize it or not, this story continues to have legs, especially now that the effects of the rejections are being felt, and MPs are going home to their communities for the summer. I won't bother to make a list of stories beyond what I have posted already, but there are lots out there, during a time when ordinarily there would be crickets about anti-abortion.

Many of these are local stories (Bruno is one of the top ones here in Saskatoon. Turns out the firefighters and other organizations also raised funds from bbqs and other sales at the cherry festival, so they are out too).

Guess what? Local is where people vote.

No Magoo. He was making an observation. A valid one.

And it isn't just about people who are pro-choice suddenly voting Conservative. It is about people of all stripes seeing this as another example of the ham-fisted actions of this government.

It is also about people who are personally anti-abortion who have voted NDP and Liberal thinking twice. Not because of abortion, but because of how they are being treated. It probably isn't going to make much difference east of Saskatoon. But it just might in some ridings where the parties aren't so far apart.

And you have seen the poll numbers. I wouldn't call it Chicken Little. Trudeau might not be the one making the decision on this policy after next year. And it is less about standing up for the rights of women and LGBT people than it is about making political hay over an east target.

Pondering wrote:

If they are holding their good works hostage on this issue they have made their priorities clear. 

Same could be said in a much bigger way for the prime minister. Though in his case the priority isn't principles; it is cheap politicking.